The History of Western Philosophy - Jewish Religious Development

Some interesting notes on early Judaism:

“The early history of the Israelites cannot be confirmed from any source outside the Old Testament, and it is impossible to know at what point it ceased to be purely legendary. David and Solomon may be accepted as kings who probably had a real existence, but at the earliest point at which we come to something certainly historical there are already the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah.” p. 309

In 596 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, destroying the Temple and removed a large part of the Jewish population to Babylon. Babylon fell in 538 B.C., and the new king Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, allowed the Jews to return to Palestine under the leadership of Nehemiah and Ezra. The “temple was rebuilt, and Jewish orthodoxy began to be crystallized.” p. 310

It is during this time that Jewish thought underwent an important change. The first commandment stating “Thou shalt have no other gods but me” is a new belief preceding this time of captivity. This is the first indication that worship of other gods was sinful. This, in turn, was used to explain why the Jews were being persecuted - for their worship of heathen gods. After the return from Babylon, Ezra and Nehemiah forbid and dissolved mixed marriages in Jerusalem.

“After Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews disappear awhile from history. The Jewish state survived as a theocracy, but its territory was very small - only the region of ten to fifteen miles around Jerusalem.” p. 313

It is surprising to me to me that this 10 to 15 mile ring around Jerusalem continued the Judaic religion until 175 B.C. when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV attempted to Hellenize the Jewish population. This was vehemently opposed by the mostly rural Hasidm, who prompted the Jews to rebel when Antiochus became involved in a war with Egypt. Apparently Antiochus decided to destroy the Jewish religion by outlawing circumcision and the practice of abstaining from pork. The urban Jews apparently submitted, but the rural Jews resisted. This period is known as the First Book of Maccabees. This period of persecution reinforced Jews’ belief that salvation lies in the hereafter. Also, “in enduring and resisting persecution the Jews of this time showed immense heroism, although in defence of things that do not strike us as important, such as circumcision and the eating of pork.” p. 316.

“The time of the persecution by Antiochus IV was crucial in Jewish history. The Jews of the Dispersion were, at this time, becoming more and more hellenized; the Jews of Judea were few; and even among them the rich and powerful were inclined to acquiesce in Greek innovations. But for the heroic resistance of the Hasidim, the Jewish religion might easily have died out. If this had happened, neither Christianity nor Islam could have existed in anything like the form they actually took.” p. 316

The Polish Officer

This is a work of historical fiction - a spy tale set in various locales during the start of WWII. Furst's attention to detail and research is admirable. However, I felt this read more like a TV series - episodic, with none of the episodes building on the other, except, perhaps, in the incrementally positive worldview of the protagonist, Alexander de Milja. Also, I hate to nitpick on style, but I'm really starting to get annoyed with excessive use of sentence fragments by many writers, not just Furst.

The first chapter is brilliant, and Furst's writing vividly evokes war-torn Europe during WW II. Given that there seems to be only slight character development in de Milja and since all of the other characters are basically set pieces, I would have hoped for a tighter-knit story. Unfortunately, all we have are episodes of various missions that de Milja undertakes. I'll give Furst the benefit of the doubt that this was used to illustrate how lost and futile even one man's heroic exploits are in the larger context of war, but the futility of an individual during wartime is already a well-visited subject.

The Boxer Rebellion - Diana Preston

After reading Diana Preston's "The Boxer Rebellion," I've learned something about my taste in history books. Full-length books on relatively brief historical events tend to be filled with anecdotes. I do not enjoy reading a book full of anecdotes. A encyclopedia entry will suffice.

This is a book admittedly telling only the Western side of the story. Preston claims that Chinese historical accounts are rare. A quick google search shows a few, so I'm dubious of this claim. Suffice it to speculate that a superstitious Chinese Empress believed that the xenophobic and violent "Boxer" sect actually possessed the mystical powers they claimed and were going to be able to throw out the racist and imperialist foreigners. What isn't speculation is that the rebellion failed, causing a summer of misery and fear in 1900.

For a more detailed account, here is the wikipedia article. If you think you might enjoy reading 360+ pages of anecdotes about turn-of-the century Westerners' plight during these times, you could read this book.

Let the Right One In (the novel) - John Ajvide Lindqvist

After seeing both the Swedish and American film adaptations of this novel, and liking both, I was excited to read the novel. The books are always better, right? Not in this case.

Oh my. Where to begin? As well as being an original, creative vampire tale, I think Lindqvist was trying to make a larger statement about the moral decay of society. Pedophilia, alcoholism, and excrement all play a much too large role in this novel. Raskolnikov from Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" is mentioned a few times, alluding to this societal decay theme. If Lindqvist was attempting a modern, vampirish take on "Crime and Punishment," he failed. There are way too many points-of-view (including a squirrel, at one point), truly gratuitous descriptions of pedophilia, and the entire book leaves you wanting to take a shower.

Kudos to both films for getting the great nugget out of this book and leaving the rest behind. Gross. Stick with either film (I prefer "Let Me In."). I now understand why the person who lent me this book didn't care if he ever got it back.

The Brave One

Confession: I watched this movie because Jodie Foster is too damn cute on the cover. We’ll see how my DVD cover instincts turn out judging a movie as a whole.

Foster plays Erica Bain, a radio show host doing a “life on the streets,” “slice of life,” “heavy prose” presumably public radio show that I typically hate in real life. She’s dating a swarthy doctor, and we get a tidy little, multi-cultural romance developing when on a walk through the park at night with their dog, they run into thugs and... BAM! They’re brutally mugged, very graphically portrayed. A weird emergency room scene then occurs intermixed with a flashback of the couple’s lovemaking.

With the PC/artistic overtones coupled with the gratuitous violence and sex, I’m beginning to think this movie is going to suck.

Terence Howard appears as a detective investigating the crime, and, well, he’s great, and the movie barometer’s plummet has slowed.

Erica wakes up after 3 weeks to a world drastically changed, and, well, she’s mad as hell. Apparently the police work is so top-notch that they’ve confused a mugging into a domestic dispute and are blaming Erica with beating her fiance to death with a pipe. I guess fingerprints, blood, fabric and DNA samples aren’t part of the investigative routine. I nitpick. Yet, she’s free to go home. I guess they’re just in the habit of making knowingly baseless accusations.

Oh, shit. Another flashback lovemaking scene. The barometer’s descent quickens. WE GET IT, OKAY? SHE MISSES HIM. BUT?! I DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH! WE LEARN HE PLAYED GUITAR FOR HER IN THIS BLURRED FLASHBACK? HELL, I MISS HIM TOO!

She goes to a gun store that she referenced by a photograph at an art exhibit (wtf?). They won’t sell her a gun immediately, but a dude approaches her outside and immediately sells her a gun in an alley? Hey - her fortunes are turning, no?

Some random women tells her she shouldn’t smoke because it could kill her. She doesn’t care! This Nubian earth mother tells her that she needs to figure out how to live. Profound!

Now Erica is in a convenience store. Dear God, please don’t... but God answers my prayer with a “no,” because, of course, she’s witness to a robbery in progress, and she pumps a few rounds into the perp.

I’m thinking a lovemaking flashback is due? Wait for it... wait for it... she stumbles back to her apartment and takes a shower in her clothes. My bad, not a flashback, but a stupid public radio prose monologue ruminating on the need to persevere.

I’m done. I gave it 40 minutes. Lesson? Don't judge a DVD by its cover.

In summation, I'll quote Christopher Orr, from the New Republic:

"The Brave One is not merely the most morally repellent film of the year, but a contender for the stupidest."

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Upon viewing Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” I found myself questioning my attention span. I had trouble following the plot, characters and keeping the thread going. To be fair, I sometimes have the attention span of a 4-year old, but this film was too long and complicated for a Western - even the always-questionable narration didn’t help to hold things together.

Regarding the film’s postive aspects, there are several nice cinematogrophic touches: blurred shots that looked like old photographs, long sweeping panaromas of praries, and an overall grandiose feel. Most of the acting is very good, but, unfortunately, I think the most important role was miscast. Brad Pitt doesn’t provide, ironically, the charisma that the character demands. He has certain tics that he seems to fall upon that don’t fit the gravitas of the role. Casey Affleck is very good, although some might find his portrayal off-putting due to the quirks he incorporates - I feel this works, for the most part. Garret Dillahunt is excellent, as usual, as Ed Miller. Sam Shepard, as usual, is fantastic as Frank James. I’m divided on Sam Rockwell’s and Jeremy Renner’s performances. I think this movie also suffers from too many well-known actors. This brings up a reoccurring question concerning casting. Do you cast talented, well-known, actors or do you roll the dice with unknown actors? I feel that there is an abundance of talent out there, and a little more effort spent in finding a fresh face would have served this movie.

Fresher faces might have served, but not saved, the film because the story is too meandering and opaque. I felt you never truly understood the character’s motivations. You understand why the gang, including Robert Ford, wish to be part of the James’ gang, and you learn Ford’s hero-worship of James began at a young age. However, you’re never really sure what’s motivating Liddil and Miller’s betrayal. There’s a greed motive, but given the expressed notoriety of James being able to flush out those disloyal to him as well as the promise of future rewards being in James’s gang, why betray him? The most fascinating part of the story is after the assassination when Robert Ford is not greeted as a hero, but is somewhat reviled, yet, at the same time, goes on to star in a NYC play, recreating the assassination to rapturous audiences for over a year before his inevitable downfall.

In the end, though, this movie has aspirations of being a Western that breaks conventions, but fails. There aren’t any gunfights, there’s a lot of slow, lyrical shots, attempts to document the celebrity surrounding Jesse James Robert Ford, etc., that puts this solidly as an anti-Western, but it just didn't capture this viewer by turning the traditional Western on its head. With its 2 hours and 40 minutes running-time, it’s unfortunate that the most interesting part of the film doesn’t happen until after Robert Ford has pulled the trigger - the last 10 minutes. I agree with one review that said that this movie doesn’t know if it wants to eliminate or hold up the outlaw-hero.

Midnight in Paris

"Midnight in Paris," Woody Allen's current, in-theaters release is what I see as the perfect summer movie: not too long, doesn't take itself too seriously, but is also very clever and has only the slightest hint of fluff.

It is somewhat over-the-top, fanciful, and has a certain element that I've always deemed a deal-breaker (hint: it's not that it's a romantic comedy, although this isn't a positive, either). I'm not going to tell you what that element is as this movie needs to be seen the first time without any preconceptions. What I knew before viewing it was that it was a Woody Allen film, took place in Paris (duh), starred Rachel McAdams and Owen Wilson, and, yeah, was a romantic comedy. It's a comedy, and there's romance(s), but the lion's share of the comedy is unrelated to romance. Not knowing anything more about this amplified my first watch tremendously.

I had so much fun that I'm considering going back and watching it again, albeit knowing what happens.

It is very unique, clever, well-acted, and really surprised me. I'm still not a huge fan of McAdams, but she certainly does better with a well-written script. I'll try and remember to do a longer review once I feel free to discuss it at length.

Go see it! Especially if you're a fan of literature! I've said too much.

Consent to Kill

After the upheaval that is moving your stuff from one structure to another, I desperately need to get back in a routine of writing.

Without further ado, I'll discuss my encounter with "Consent to Kill," a spy thriller written by Vince Flynn.

This novel had a Tom Clancy, "best seller" air to it, and I wouldn't normally have read it, but an acquaintance of mine, Florian, recommended it highly.

Unfortunately, my instincts were correct. This is a ridiculous book. Mitch Rapp is the super spy who doesn't like to answer to anyone and frequently doesn't. His wife is the White House correspondent for NBC. His enemies are assassins trafficking hundreds of millions of dollars. He's the only one who truly understands what it takes to protect our freedom! If only the bureaucracy and petty minds would get out of his way!

Time to get back to "A History of Western Philosophy." It has more intrigue than this pulp moon pie.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Elizabeth Taylor’s death prompted me to watch “Cat On a Hot Tin Roof” via Netflix instant viewing. I was instantly endeared to this film as the brat children are described as “no neck monsters” unrestrained by their parents. The endearment continues with the pure, Southern gothic screenplay adaptation of Tennessee Williams’s Pulitzer-winning play, co-penned by Richard Brooks and James Poe.

This gang of no-necked, horrible children are the nieces and nephews of Maggie and Brick Pollitt - Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman, respectively. Brick is an alcoholic and it quickly becomes apparent that the couple have not made love in a long time. Maggie is not happy about this and says she feels like she’s a “cat on a hot tin roof," at times referring to herself as “Maggie the Cat.” The miscreants’ parents are Mae and Gooper Pollitt. The patriarch and matriarch of the family are “Big Daddy” and “Big Momma” Pollitt, with Burl Ives playing an uncharacteristically harsh, cruel (yet honest) role - that of Big Daddy Pollitt. The drama surrounds Big Daddy Pollitt's terminal illness and the resolving of his 28,000 acre, multi-million dollar estate.

The highlights of this film are the dialogue, the acting, the cinematography and the subtext. I’m not sure which order of greatness these fall in. The entire film is quotable. The themes of avarice and mendacity are brilliantly illustrated. The acting is 99% spot-on, and the color film and lighting is luminous and beautiful. There is a possible subtext of a gay relationship between Brick and a former friend who formed (at least) an emotional triangle with “Maggie the Cat.” The original play referenced homesexuality directly - Hollywood removed these direct references. Regardless, it’s an extremely brave play for the mid 1950’s and less-brave, but still courageous subsequent film for the mid to late 1950’s. Williams is said not to have been happy with the adaptation due to these omissions.

The actors, all of them, are to be praised for their gentile Southern accents - slight, very real and very well done.

I am thrilled with this movie. The blu-ray is not yet available, but the Netflix high-definition stream is - please avail yourself of this.

IMDB.com article
Wikipedia article

The Seventh Seal

Yet another one of my 50% off Criterion purchases was Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" made in 1957 - widely lauded as a classic cinema masterpiece. It takes its name from the Bible’s Book of Revelation, wherein seven seals are opened before rapture takes place and final judgement is rendered. As the film notes, "when the Lamb had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour" (Revelation 8:1). This is a meditation on religion, doubt and faith, referenced in the space of half an hour wherein God is silent. We are immediately introduced to the knight and his squire returning from the crusades. The knight, played by a young Max Von Sydow, starts a game of chess with Death in an attempt to bargain for his life. This is immediately contrasted with a scene involving a family of actors who, despite their poverty, are very much in love and are examples of faith and life itself.

The knight and squire wander into a church with an artist painting a fresco of death terrorizing a village, indicative of the black death (the plague of historical times) that surrounds them. The fresco portrays villagers who are whipping themselves into a frenzy in the belief that the black plague is a punishment handed down by God. The knight enters the confessional expecting a priest to hear him. During the heartfelt confession, the knight asks such questions as "Is it so cruelly inconceivable to grasp God with the senses? Why should He hide himself in a mist of half-spoken promises and unseen miracles?...What is going to happen to those of us who want to believe but aren't able to?" However, it is not a priest who is listening to the knight’s entreaties, but Death who poses the question “You want a guarantee?” The knight wants knowledge, not “faith or conjecture, but knowledge.” After explaining to Death that he wants God to reach out his hand to him, Death notes “yet, he is silent.” After the knight explains how he feels that God isn’t there at times, Death posits that, perhaps, “God isn’t there,” whereupon the knight relates that this isn’t an outcome he can accept - “No man can live facing death knowing that everything is nothingness.” I do not want to transcribe this entire conversation, although I’m tempted to - there are at least two other existential quandaries that are also illuminated - facing death and the general ignorance to its meaning . It is the core of not only this movie, but also the question of faith and doubt in religion. To juxtapose this argument onto the scenario of a knight returning home from the Crusades to find the black plague ravaging his homeland in a chess game with Death is nothing short of a brilliant intellectual and artistic display.

However, as Pee Wee Herman notes, "Why does everyone always have such a big but(t)?" BUT, HOWEVER, etc., the attempts at comedy relief in "The Seventh Seal" fall hard unto modern concrete, but maybe these found a sympathetic audience in 1957. Too much time is spent trying to humorously explore the notion of fidelity - it plays into a misogynistic theme that is too prevalent. This is a big stone dragging down the greater themes present.

On yet another, trivial, note, there is also WAY too much baby butt in this movie. Gross.

I’m not fond of the whiny circus performers, the baby butt present, the blubbering blacksmith, his tramp wife, etc. This movie boils down, for me, to the confessional scene between knight and Death and their interplay exploring mortality, doubt and faith. The burning of the “witch” is no trivial affair, either - also orchestrated by Death. A quick digress: George Lucas’s Emperor Palpatine looks suspiciously like Bergman’s Death driving the witch’s wagon.

In my layman’s opinion, this is a beautiful film with grand themes present, but too much of the film is wasted trying to be funny and marred by over-the-top acting.

IMDB.com "Seventh Seal" entry
"The Seventh Seal" wikipedia article

Spoileriffic trailer:

The Call of Cthulhu

The 2005 film adaptation of “The Call of Cthulhu” done by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society is an admirable attempt at creating a period, silent-film retelling of the famous H.P. Lovecraft story.

Although a very well-done endeavor, I find the mix of modern and silent film-making techniques to be distracting. An “either/or” philosophy would have served better. Generally, the silent-film techniques employed serve the film well, but we are taken out of the story by improbable overhead camera shots and other modern techniques. This technique, called “mythoscope” by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society should probably end here. It isn’t horrible, but it uses too many modern camera angles and other effects to suit my tastes. It’s cool on paper, but the execution leaves me wanting.

From a story-telling perspective, it does not elucidate the written story all that well - there’s a reason filmmaker upon filmmaker have passed upon this film - the three disparate locales in the story make it hard to film a narrative whole. I’m afraid that the HPLHS adaptation doesn’t succeed, either.

That being said, it is a short film. If you’re a H.P. Lovecraft fan, of course you should give this a viewing and decide for yourself.

Wikipedia article
IMDB.com article

The Thin Blue Line

This Errol Morris documentary is considered a classic documentary, but my impressions are that the Phillip Glass soundtrack, as well as the cheesy reenactments are over the top and sully the journalistic nature of what a documentary is supposed to achieve. The closeups of various items - a newspaper article, a clock, and the too-loud Glass soundtrack overlaying the actual participants’ dialogue makes for a frustrating viewing experience - maddening, actually. For example, what do we gain by watching the same b-movie the participants watched during the night in question? An insight into their psychology? I am really interested in the story, but the pretentious soundtrack and the cinematography ruin this for me.

Here’s the synopsis from the Wikipedia article:

The film concerns the November 28, 1976 murder of Dallas police officer, Robert W. Wood, during a traffic stop. The Dallas Police Department was unable to make an arrest until they learned of information given by a 16-year-old resident of Vidor, Texas who had told friends that he was responsible for the crime.[3] The juvenile, David Ray Harris, led police to the car driven from the scene of the crime, as well as a .22 caliber revolver he identified as the murder weapon. He subsequently identified 28-year-old Ohio resident Randall Dale Adams as the murderer.

Adams had been living in a motel in Dallas with his brother. The film presents a series of interviews about the investigation and reenactments of the shooting, based on the testimony and recollections of Adams, Harris, and various witnesses and detectives. Two attorneys who represented Adams at the trial where he was convicted of capital murder also appear: they suggest that Adams was charged with the crime despite the better evidence against Harris because, as Harris was a juvenile, Adams alone of the two could be sentenced to death under Texas law.

The film's title comes from the prosecutor's comment during his closing argument that the police are the "thin blue line" separating society from anarchy. This is a re-working of a line from Rudyard Kipling's poem Tommy in which he describes British soldiers (nicknamed "Tommy Atkins") as the "thin red line", from the color of their uniforms and their formation.

This documentary’s investigation showed that five witnesses committed perjury and, as a result, overturned Adams’s conviction. I do not argue that this is not an important movie, but its style is an unfortunate, pretentious precedent for films to come. On the other hand, it’s investigation and quest for truth set an even more important precedent - suffice it to say that I cannot argue with the importance of this movie, but from a viewer’s perspective, it falls short for me.

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring

This film is a Buddhist fable writ large upon the silver screen. It is beautiful, poignant, and also a little perplexing to me - there’s a scene where the master monk beats his student, albeit after a suicide attempt, and there’s some child endangerment issues. These are moot, though, as this film is meant, I believe, to be taken as a visual poem and not a literal tale.

It is a 2003 South Korean film, directed by Kim Ki-duk, and stars Su Oh-yeong, Kim Young-min, Seo Jae-kyung, and Kim Jong-ho.

Jimi Plays Monterey / Shake! Otis at Monterey

Another one of my Criterion Collections’ 50% off purchases was “Jimi Plays Monterey / Shake! Otis at Monterey” which documents each artists’ performance at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967. This is directed by D.A. Pennebaker - for the most part, straight concert footage is used, a credit to Pennebaker’s taste. One point where this strays during the music is during Otis’s “Try a Little Tenderness” where Pennebaker cuts in shots of various women in the audience and outside of the venue with children, lovers, etc. It’s short, very sweet, and manages to get beyond all the negative hippie mystique of the era and show the truly beautiful aspects of the 60’s - all in a short 2-3 (?) minute sequence. Very well done.

Both of these are historic performances and important documents of the history of rock and rhythm and blues music. There are many highlights, not the least of which is seeing a very young Donald "Duck" Dunn spasm all over his bass in glorious fashion.

I’m glad they’re in my collection.

Cronos

“Cronos,” Guillermo Del Toro’s first feature, is a tale of alchemy combined with vampiric elements. Positive elements include Guillermo’s fondness of children, the elderly and their interactions. After listening to Del Toro’s commentary, my thoughts coalesce: his alchemical symbols were lost on me, and probably most of his audience. The story revolves around a clock-like, golden scarab that holds a live insect inside. He speaks of selling his car to get the money needed to film the internal artifact shots, even though his producers said they weren't needed. He insists that they're critical to the movie to explain the alchemy of the movie. I'm not sure this should have been his, apparently, main focus.

This film isn’t a failure, and, I’m very glad this movie was made as it allowed Del Toro to make much better films. However, Del Toro’s insistence on the internal insect shots shows a navel-gazing in regards to this strange vamipire/alchemy mythology that simply doesn’t interest me.

I bought this based upon Del Toro’s later movies, and the Criterion Collections’ reputation, and, again, I don’t hate it, but I’ll probably be selling this on ebay.

Wilderness

Based on my friend, KennKong's urging, I did what I vowed I wasn't going to do - put a movie at the top of my queue considering I've recently spent too much money on the Criterion Collection's 50% off sale.

However, Ken being a good sport with my reviews, entertaining discussions, etc., I felt I shouldn't be so stuck in my ways.

Thus, I have seen Michael J. Basset's 2006 film, "Wilderness," and, as usual, Kong is spot on with his recommendations. It's an intense tale of revenge that doesn't take too long setting up. Humans hunting humans have been an interesting topic for me. In film, "Apocalypto," "Battle Royale," "The Most Dangerous Game" and a slew of Bond films have also had this as a theme.

Suffice it to say that other than appealing to bloodlust, something I feel guilty about, this movie is great. I'm not going to waste any more time, though, and direct you to Kong's review.

The Social Network

“The Social Network,” directed by David Fincher and starring Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg starts with an incredible scene of dialogue. Fincher notes in the commentary that it was very brave for Aaron Sorkin to write 9 pages of dialogue as an opening scene. Also, taking a cue from film noir, it is rapid-fire, intense and is filled with romantic tension. I loved it. Rooney Mara, playing Erica Albright, Zuckerberg’s girlfriend, is fantastic as the foil.

This rapid-fire dialogue follows throughout the movie and is the highlight. I don’t have a lot to say - it’s an interesting story, but the acting and the dialogue are the highlights.

I also love the soundtrack - its pace matches the dialogue and feel very well. I’ve never been a huge fan of Reznor’s music, but I’ve also never placed it in a soundtrack context - it’s working well - very well. It’s still quintissentially Reznor, co-written with Atticus Ross, but I’ll give credit where credit is due - this is a great soundtrack.

I really expected this to be a ho-hum movie. I love this movie - even though it’s a very modern topic, it returns to the old-fashioned notion that the script and dialogue need to be crafted and polished. I haven’t seen “The King’s Speech” yet, but this, so far, is what I think deserved the best picture Oscar for 2010. I do agree, however, with what it did win - best score, best screenplay, and best editing.

Paths of Glory

“Paths Of Glory” is a 1957 Stanley Kubrick film adapted from the novel of the same name penned by Humphrey Cobb.

First off, I’m watching the Criterion Collection Blu-Ray and it looks great. Second, we almost immediately have a scene where General George Mireau, played by George Macready, slaps a soldier because he’s a “baby,” not shell-shocked as another soldier advises. The general declares “there is no such thing as shell-shocked!”

A great dialogue follows wherein General Mireau, after advising Kirk Douglas’s character, Colonel Dax, that his men are expected to suffer 60% casualties after the planned offensive on the “Ant Hill.” Mireau notices a smirk on Dax’s face and asks Dax if he is amused after stating that “all of France is depending on you!” The two-minute conversation if full of traps and release, well-acted and contains more cinematic worth than most movies.

Throughout the film, the secondary actors leave a little something to be desired and take the audience out of the movie, unfortunately. The dialogue, however, is interesting enough so these minor acting deficiencies don’t significantly impact the movie as a whole.

The assault on Ant Hill is fantastic. It starts with Colonel Dix walking through the trenches, looking each weary soldier in the eye as the morning’s initial military barrage starts. He then whistles for the assault to begins, and the soldiers leap out of the trenches for the assault, which ultimately fails due to soldiers’ refusal to fight against insurmountable odds.

The film becomes a legal one. It is an early, antiwar movie, and illustrates the tenuous legal dynamics in military tribunals. Col. Dix uses an emotional appeal to protect the sometimes randomly-picked defendants in a court-martial trial for “cowardice in the face of the enemy.”
This appeal fails, and the three defendants are sentenced to death.

A rather shocking scene occurs when the priest informs the prisoners of their fate and offers to accept their confessions - hostility against religion is displayed, a precursor for anti-establishment films to come.

This is what I think is paramount to this film - it is a very early example of anti-establishment, anti-war film that is expertly made and primarily courageous for its time.

The cinematography is certainly worth mentioning. Not being a film scholar, it seems that the incorporation of wide-angle, macro shops with off-center, perspective shots was also early for its time. This movie has the distinctive Kubrick signature.

It is a short, 88 minute movie. Stakes are established, gambled, and realized. A closing scene of a bunch of horny soldiers clamoring for an obviously traumatized German woman to sing naively takes the humanist tone to a improbable conclusion - the soldiers stop acting like crazy horndogs and hum along with her, some sobbing in recognition of the dynamic present. Col. Dix looks on in approval and grants the men some more time before having to move back to the front.

This is not a perfect movie, but stands as an amazing accomplishment.

Alien 3

After last night’s Oscar mediocrity, I’m plunging ahead with rewatching “Alien 3.” This and “Alien 4,” or whatever the fuck it’s called was included in the blu-ray set I purchased. I really should have waited for the individual titles to come out, but they got me, so I’ll watch these final two movies which I hated upon first viewing. I think the movie studios are too cynical to care - they are, of course, in it for my hard-earned cash. They got it. The first two movies are so good, that I’ll spend the extra scratch on the last two. Not before I trash them on the internet to the 2 to 3 of my friends who might actually read this.

I hope I was previously mistaken.

Hmmm. I remember being SO EXCITED. DAVID FINCHER, right? Fire in cryogenic compartment? Uh oh. Ripley’s doing the chicken. Not good. Jettisoned into space. I guess? Her jettisoned tube becomes a lego piece? Or were they separate, jettisoned pieces? Either way it’s a maximum security prison planet. Maybe this post-apocalyptic priest will tell us. Ripley’s washed upon the beach, covered in black! RUN! Wake up, Ripley! Ripley coughs up water out of her lungs! She’s alive! Run! Get the water buffalo! Too bad for Hicks. And Newt.

WTF? YOU KILLED NEWT? WHAT KIND OF HEARTLESS HOLLYWOOD BASTARDS ARE YOU? Glad I caught that off the green-screen monitor. So much for the past? Let’s get this prison/pseudo-religious drama going!

The black priest speaks of sinning, and, apparently, black power! The followers are celibates, but are still upset by the prospect of a woman being in their midst. They bang on railings... lots of cockney accents... aliens coming out of water buffalos... lots of reilgious exposition...

Oh fuck it.

Winter's Bone

“Winter’s Bone” concerns itself with the plight of an Ozarks’ family during the winter. The family’s father, Jessop, is a methamphetamine manufacturer who has either skipped bail for a prior arrest or has been killed. Jessop also put up his and his family’s house as collateral for the bail. Due to his not showing up for his hearing, the family’s property is at risk for being taken. Ree, the 17 year-old daughter of Jessop, is the matriarch of the family. The mother is alive, but completely absent and a non-factor for an unexplained reason. Ree is raising her younger brother and sister. Ree decides to get to the bottom of the “Jessop” question and proceeds upon a quest to either find her father or prove that he is deceased.

This quest involves Ree’s uncle, Teardrop played by John Hawkes. I love, love, love the HBO series “Deadwood” in which John Hawkes plays Sol Star - a fantastic performance. Unfortunately I haven’t seen any of his other appearances. Garrett Dillahunt from “Deadwood” also makes an appearance as a sherriff deputy. Teardrop is a defining character for the film - initially he is villanious - contrary and violent. When Ree asks for his help, his wife takes her side, confronts Teardrop and Teardrop issues the following, menacing utterance: “I said ‘shutup’ already once with my mouth.” His character proves to have an empathetic part of him as the film goes on, but I think this underlies the violent male nature towards women depicted in this film - even the “good guys” are predisposed to smacking the women around.

My first thoughts toward this film involve another 2010 film, “True Grit.” Both protagonists, “Winter’s Bone” Ree and “True Grit’s” Mattie are both young matriarchs with strong wills fighting against a system that is male-dominated . Especially in the case of “Winter’s Bone,” it’s women cleaning up after the men’s destruction.

This is a nice example of a good story transferred to a movie format well.

Inception

This movie is the worst "Star Trek" episode x100 with slick visuals thrown in. Fail.

For a fairer review that outlines what I won't take the time to do, please see my friend KennKong's review.

The Hurt Locker

Mark Boal’s “The Hurt Locker” is a work of fiction, but brilliantly captures the tension of war during this long period of U.S. military history in Iraq. Numerous movies have been made, both fictional and documentary in nature, about the Iraq war. I think of the maxim of “truth is stranger than fiction,” and recall the Errol Morris documentary “Standard Operating Procedure,” which illustrates this maxim well (I’ve given my thoughts on this movie here). “The Hurt Locker”, conversely, illustrates how fiction can sometimes give a somehow truer emotional impact than a straight retelling. Although fiction, the screenplay was written by Mark Boal, a journalist embedded with an United States Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team during the Iraq War. In the commentary, Bigelow notes her appreciation of the script by discussing how during several moments in the film, it’s impossible to tell friend from foe - a guy using a video camera is potentially very hostile - this conflict and judgement call process repeats several times throughout the movie and illustrates America’s difficulty with guerilla wars throughout history.

I do not know of a more prominent tactic in modern combat than the use of IEDs. Who, other than those directly involved, would know what this military acronym means if it were not for the prominence of it in the media? The use of bombs as a terrorist device has a long history - the first documented use of a car bomb was the IRA in the 1920’s, but given how modern military and political conflict stems out of terrorism and more specifically, the bombs they use, “The Hurt Locker’s” combination of the tension involving disarming said devices with the psychology of those disarming them is amazingly astute as a modern sociological observation.

The movie starts, wasting zero time involving the audience - a bomb disposal is in progress. Immediately, the cinematography and direction captures the audience’s attention. I am not a film expert, so I don’t know whether to call this “cinéma vérité” or “direct cinema,” etc., but the point-of-view of the cameras during these scenes are very immediate - the camera shifts from wide macro shots to orient the audience to tighter shots involving the principals to tight-close ups. It is fast, intense filmmaking, and it would be easy to lose the audience, which Bigelow and crew never do. Sometimes it’s only good - usually it’s great. This won the 2009 Academy Award for best editing, and the editing team of Chris Innis and Bob Murawski deserve it.

My own personal bias in movies and literature for modern times is that it’s important to quickly give the short-attention-span dog a bone, as it were, and get your audience’s attention quickly. If it takes me more than 100 pages into a book or more than a half-hour into a movie to find something to hang on to, your audience could be on to the next book or movie. The heart-grabbing start of “The Hurt Locker” is an easy, perhaps definitive, example of starting out fast. The contrast between the bomb-disposal robot heading in one direction, and various military personnel and civilians running in the exact opposite direction is a stark image of life in Iraq during these times.

Sergeant First Class William James, played by Jeremy Renner, is quickly established as someone predisposed to fatalism. He removes the plywood covering his barracks’ window to let in sunshine. When advised by the seasoned Sergeant Sanborn, aptly played by Anthony Mackie, that he might want to keep the plywood up due to its protection against mortar fragmentation, he notes that it will do no good against a direct hit on the roof and the basks in the sunlight provided while listening to heavy metal.

Immediately following is the second of multiple bomb-disposal scenes. James dons a bomb suit in lieu of using the robot to reconnaissance the suspected IED site. A very tense moment occurs when James stands down a taxi with only his sidarm that has sped directly at him. The editing during this scene is amazing due to its numerous perspectives - there’s the James/taxi stand-off perspective, the US backup personnel providing cover to the scene, the closeups of the taxi driver, the narrowing of focus from James/taxi to James holding the gun against the driver’s head. The most striking visual in the film is soon to follow. The great "spider bomb" scene follows - another great example of editing and cinematography.

After confronting James about his recklesness, Sanborn notes that if they survive the day, they will have 38 days left in their rotation - a parameter used to measure time in the film. Specialist Owen Eldridge is the third member of the EOD team. He is obviously troubled, and the army psychologist counsels him, and, according to Bigelow and Boar, is true to life in that combat stress psychologists want to keep “the soldier in the fight and the fight in the solder.”

After encountering private contractors in the desert, the EOD team becomes engaged in a protracted sniper’s battle. During the commentary, Bigelow and Boar note that a single Humvee would not be traveling alone in the desert. Realistically, this would have been multiple Humvees - a convoy, but due to budget restrictions, compromises have to be made. This battle is yet another superb example of this film’s capacity to start, build, hold and eventually release tension. I am amazed at the pacing of this scene. This surely stands out as one of the best sniper scenes ever filmed. Not only is the action and tension of the battle itself competently illustrated, the vulnerable psychology of Specialist Eldridge is also dramatized. Again, personal psychology combined with battlefield tension drive home an agitated, unfortunate comment on the nature of war. The scale of a sniper fight is so dramatically increased that I think the movie does an amazing job of showing a mile-long battlefield. I think the action is lost in a very minor fashion during the start of this firefight, but that's arguably done to illustrate chaos and how you don't always immediately know where your attackers are.

There are a couple of sections that somewhat take me out of the movie. James’s adventure into the Bagdhad neighborhoods looking for a child’s killer and his reckless hunting of the insurgents responsible for the immense tanker bomb bother me. I don’t think they’re horrible - they’re done to establish James’ character, but I think they’re somewhat redundant. Perhaps Boar, Bigelow, et al. aren’t giving the audience enough credit. Both of these scenes illustrate the consequences of James’ reckless behavior, but I think that the movie up to this point has already set in the audience’s minds the risk and possible consequences - I’m not sure we needed to have this dramatized.

The last scene I wish to mention is when James has a furlough, returns home and is starting at the wealth of cereal options before basically shrugging his shoulders, shaking his head and grabbing one at random off the shelf. Boar drew upon his own experience at how after returning home he was tripped out by the display of wealth and consumerism that is the modern supermarket. He notes that many soldiers have told him that they, too, have had similar experiences.

Notes on commentary:

Money was raised independently - Bigelow and Boar are the producers. Shooting the movie in the Middle East was a bonus for producing the movie independently - this would have been a “non-starter” in Hollywood, according to Bigelow. Opening was shot in Amman, Jordan, and the city was very reluctant to allow a shoot here. The wide boulevards are very similar to Baghdad. Initially Morroco was chosen, but the architecture is very different, so Boal and Bigelow decided to scout Jordan. The scene where xxx throws a water bottle at the car in front of the Hummer is actual traffic in Jordan - as was the maimed cat. Additional locations included Kuwait and Iraq.

Real bomb squads criticisize “HME’s” - hollywood movie explosions - so Richard Stutzman and the rest of the special effects department worked to recreate realistic explosions - including the visceral “over pressure” that occurs - the expanding wave of air pressure expanding around the explosion, lifting everything up as well as expanding any air around it - literally exploding lungs or puncturing anything containing air in its path. A phantom camera was used that can shoot 10,000 to 20,000 fps to capture this effect in slow motion during the opening scene.

The robot in the film is a military issue “Talon” robot - Bigelow and Boar had to secure one from its manufacturer, Northrop Grumman.

The bomb suit weighs 80 pounds, and the average temperature during shooting was 115 degrees.

The “spider” bomb and the dropped 9v battery trigger is accurate - amazing that such a force can be unleashed by a simple 9v battery trigger.

Bigelow and Boar discuss the synchronization of score and foley - both the sound effects designer and the score composer would swap audio files so that a coherent whole could be achieved - notably during the car bomb defusal scene when James triggers the windshield wipers.

It might seem odd that James and Sanborn would be able to take over the Barrett sniper rifle after the contractors are killed, but EOD teams are trained to use Barrett sniper rifles - sometimes EOD teams would use a Barrett to detonate an IED from a safe distance.

Boar notes that during his time as an embedded journalist, they never had a translator - it’s hard to understand how an occupation of a foreign country could be competently established without the basic prerequisite of communicating with the populace.

If you haven't seen this movie, please do so. It's an amazing film.

"Illegal" and "The Big Steal"

"Illegal" stars Edward G. Robinson - it is the first time I've seen him in a film. My first thought upon seeing him was of the Bugs Bunny caricature.



It's strange to have seen a caricature so early and so many times as a kid to then view the person on which it was based 30+ years later. Based upon this caricature, I was expecting Robinson to chew the scenery much more than he did - his is a level performance. However, the writing chews the scenery for him. To wit, Robinson plays Victor Scott - a District Attorney who prosecutes an innocent man into the electric chair. With his reputation sullied, Scott hits the bottle in true noir fashion, and then starts reassembling his life on the other side of the courtroom as a defense attorney. The scenery-chewing is a result of the stunts Scott pulls in the courtroom - punching a man to prove a point and ingesting poison, betting on a recess occurring, and then running next door to have his stomach pumped. There's also a humorous romantic scene wherein neither actor displays any affection for the other - they could be discussing a grocery list.

In spite of this, or maybe because of this, the movie is enjoyable as noir camp. It's well-paced, and has many of the noir stamps. Although perhaps not a true femme fatale, Ellen Miles is a romantic/daughter figure for Scott and he goes to dangerous lengths to protect her. A side note: Miles is played by Nina Foch who went on to become a film professor at USC and provides commentary for the film. We have a strong sexual component with Jayne Mansfield acting as the crime boss's girlfriend, Angel O'Hara, who delivers a tepid musical performance and a not-so-tepid figure.

I don't feel this is one for the ages, but I'm glad it's available and I enjoyed watching it.



I’d next like to post my thoughts on “The Big Steal,” which are interspersed with notes gleaned from the DVD commentary, done by Rick Jewell, Hugh M. Hefner professor of American Film at the University of Southern California.

“The Big Steal” was adapted from a short story, “The Road to Carmichael’s” by Richard Wormser. Columbia had purchased the rights, but Columbia never made the movie - RKO bought it from Columbia in 1948. Numerous edits took place leading toward its short length of 71 minutes and some inconsistencies in the film.

The two biggest points that stand out to me are the acting of Ramón Novarro and the direction, filming and acting during the big car chase which is a significant portion of the movie.

Ramón Novarro was a Latin-American actor who achieved his fame during the silent film era, with his biggest role being in “Ben-Hur.” Given the generally “stiff” acting of the time, I think Novarro stands out by being especially demonstrative with facial expressions, inflections, etc. - probably a carryover from his silent film days. This helps to set him apart and give his character a welcome contrast to the other characters. I particulary like where he is discussing how he wants to learn English and corrects his “mouses” utterance with “mice.” His personal story is not a happy one - for more info see his wikipedia article.

I love the big car chase scene in this movie. You can tell the stunt drivers are pushing the cars to their limits - on one turn, especially, if the car would have wobbled any more it surely would have lost traction. Greer does an excellent job of pretending to drive in front of a screen. Another excellent moment is when Captain Blake’s car nearly has a head-on collision before swerving just in front of another vehicle - this is a good, early example of action filmmaking.

I also love Jane Greer in this movie. I’ve been accused of liking “mousey” women before, but that’s just the book cover on Ms. Jane Greer - her performance is anything but mousey. Jane Greer and Robert Mitchum had previously appeared in “Out of the Past” - widely regarded as the best noir film made. In spite of their previous success, Howard Hughes, the head of RKO at that time, did not initially want to cast Greer due to a prior romantic relationship that Hughes shared with Greer. However, due to another complication, he ended up doing so.

The complication that Hughes was faced with was that Robert Mitchum had been recently arrested on marijuana charges. Even though Mitchum weathered this difficulty due to his popularity and that his arrest might have actually increased his popularity as one of the first “bad boys” of film, leading women of the time were initially reluctant to be paired with Mitchum. In fact, the original actress cast, Elizabeth Scott, withdrew due to a supposed illness once Mitchum’s involvement was made known. Several other actresses turned the part down before Hughes assigned it to Greer. Halfway through the production, Mitchum had to serve time in the county jail. Stunt doubles were used on location in Mexico to shoot various driving scenes and exterior shots during Mitchum’s incarceration. This was another reason for the streamlining of the script.

The director, Don Siegal, had a long career in movies - perhaps most notably directing “Dirty Harry.” Clint Eastwood considered Siegal one of his mentors. Siegal is noted in his early career for creating excellent montages. Jewel discussses why there are no montages in “The Big Steal.” Montages were used to illustrate the passage of time and since “The Big Steal’s” story happens within one day, it would have seemed out of place in the film.

Again, not my favorite noir and without the back story, I probably wouldn't like it as much. As with all mediocre movies, if it's brief, it helps and this movie is short. Navarro and Greer's performances are fun to watch.

Bad Lieutenant

I'm going to put my thoughts on the interwebs concerning 1992's "Bad Lieutenant" with the caveat that my sole reason for doing so is autobiographical. I want to record every movie I watched in 2011. Given these past couple of weeks and that it took at least 4 separate nights of viewing to get through "Bad Lieutenant," I wish I could give this a more thorough critique.

My initial conclusion is that Abel Ferrara and Alejandro González Iñárritu share a common goal: torture their viewers while appearing to make insightful social commentary. Throughout the movie there are gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, sexual abuse of teenagers, nuns being raped, etc. This might have been progressive in 1950, but attempting to illustrate society's ills by graphically depicting them on screen without another frame of reference was passé, conservatively, 30 years prior to the making of this film.

What's sad is that Iñárritu is attempting the same tactic 20 years later.

Ebert loved this movie. He praised Keitel for being courageous enough to take the part.

Bruno Ganz was courageous to play the darkest portrayal of Hitler to see the silver screen. I think Keitel knew that Ferrara would let him have free reign, and it apparently wowed many, but I think it wasn't courageous - it was a misstep.

Aliens

“Maybe we’ve got them demoralized.” -Hudson

Continuing with the Alien blu-ray box set I treated myself to, here are my thoughts on “Aliens.”

I watched the director’s cut this time. My default is to watch the theatrical version unless I know that the director honestly prefers the director’s cut. There’s an intro to the director’s cut where Cameron states that he prefers this version - as well as my friend Kong's urging to watch the extended version. 20+ minutes were cut for the theatrical version. Multiplexes weren’t around in 1986 and there was more pressure to keep movies to a two-hour limit so that theaters could show more viewings per day.

This, like “Alien,” is an amazing film. Considering the precedent “Alien” set, Cameron pulled off a tremendous feat of writing and directing the sequel. There are many things to talk about, but I’ll throw out my thoughts on the editing, the story and characters, the acting, and the special effects.

The film starts out with an immediate continuation from the first - Ripley’s ship being rescued. It’s not always possible, but to immediately continue where the last movie left off lends a nice continuity. Yes, it was 50 years later, but that was spent with Ripley floating around space in the deep freeze. During her rescue there is a very nice dissolve of Ripley’s face matching the earth - a little too on-the-nose symbolism, perhaps, but a nice effect.

Storytelling and editing merge wonderfully in the movie to establish a smart pace. Shortly after Ripley’s rescue, we have a scene where an alien bursts out of Ripley’s chest, which is then revealed to be a dream. Not an original technique, but not only does this effectively ratchet up the tension quickly, it also establishes Ripley’s psychology and phobia. Later, the evidence of a ferocious battle, the acid holes in the floor, etc., in the first reconnaissance squad scene help to foreshadow things to come as well as tightening the tension. The scene where Ripley washes Newt’s face is tender, superbly-acted, and yet also accomplishes another click on the ratchet of tension with the following dialogue:

Ripley: “Newt. Look at me. Where are they?” (Newt’s parents)
Newt: “They’re dead, allright? Can I go now?”
Ripley: “Don’t you think you’d be safer here with us?”
[Newt shakes her head]
Ripley: “These people are here to protect you - they’re soldiers.”
Newt (quietly): “It won’t make any difference.”

The tension continues to build when Ripley discovers that they’re near cooling tanks during the "rescue" mission, relays this information to Lieutenant Gorman who then commands Sergeant Apone to retrieve the squad’s ammo. The squad then discovers the not-quite dead colonist, her chest bursts, they torch the wriggling alien and then, finally, we see the aliens. After they get “their ass kicked,” the situation goes from bad to worse until the firefight ensues with Aliens coming out of the ceiling and the floor. All the gloves are off at that point, and it hurdles along to its conclusion. It was skillful and brave to hold off introducing the aliens until the pacing called for it - an hour or more into the movie (something like that) and not bore your audience in the meantime. In the commentary, Cameron notes that the studio felt the lead-up to the aliens reveal was too long and scenes prior to the reveal were cut.

One of these is the scene wherein Burke tells Ripley that her daughter is dead. It’s central to Ripley’s character and her relationship with Newt later - it helps fortify Ripley’s instincts towards Newt. Additional scenes that were cut are the scene of Newt’s family going to the derelict alien spacecraft and the scene where the working stiffs inside the facility kick the kids out of a work area. These scenes establish the notion that colonists with families were working there, but its omission in the theatrical version was less of a disappointment in my eyes to find left out than the Burke/Ripley scene. Both Newt’s parents and the working stiffs are (as always, in my humble opinion) the least-talented performances in the movie. The creators also admit that the tension around the alien derelict ship was much better in the first movie.

Overall, though, the acting is very good. Sigourney Weaver earned an Oscar nomination - something unheard of for a science fiction movie at that time. This was well-deserved - she is really good.

Cameron relates in the commentary how Weaver wanted 3 things in the movie that she didn’t get - she wanted to die, she didn’t want any guns (what?! Cameron rightfully chuckles at this), and she wanted to make love to the alien (interesting - eeeew). He notes that, thankfully, she didn’t get any of these, but when her power increased in the subsequent films, she got what she wanted - which is probably why those movies suck. It’s also probably why she is painfully absent for the commentary. We've seen Cameron be a huge dick on live TV, so I'd like to get Weaver's perspective - it's disappointing that she isn't on this commentary. He also notes that although he respects that the directors in the final films had their own vision, he was disappointed that they didn’t honor the “family” relationships - Ripley, Hicks and Newt. I am going to watch them since I had to buy them as part of the set, but I don’t think I’m going to reverse my previous opinions of the first two being really great films and the final two being disappointments.

I also HAVE to mention Michael Biehn who plays Corporal Hicks. His performance is brilliant - his eye movements, timing, volume, body posture, etc. He finesses it well - the best performance in my eyes. Well, actually, Carrie Henn is also amazing as Newt - this was her first acting, PERIOD. No school plays, no disturbing beauty pageants, nada. Gale Anne Hurd (producer and Cameron’s wife) relates in the commentary that what set her apart was that the vast majority of girls who auditioned had been trained to smile so much that they didn’t accurately display the trauma that Newt went through. Henn didn’t make her career in acting, though - she’s in the commentary briefly and Hurd notes that she chose a “normal life,” but no details. I’m guessing she became a basket case after the movie and mostly eats cats for sustenance - mostly.

Lance Henriksen, as always, does a magnificent job. Bishop’s character is compassionate and anxious to please. Ripley and the audience are immediately suspicious due to Ash’s betrayal in “Alien,” when, in fact, Bishop acts exemplary throughout, although the suspicion is triggered again by Bishop’s fascination whilst examining the face-hugger and also at the end when he seems to abandon Ripley and Newt. A little piece of commentary trivia is that Henriksen, at one point, wanted Bishop to have two pupils in his eyes - he’s fond of having something physical to associate with his characters. Cameron nixed this as being over the top - a good decision in my one-pupiled eye.

Regarding the ensemble acting, Cameron’s direction and Ray Lovejoy’s editing accomplishes a difficult task - capturing 5+ actors in a scene with rapid dialogue in a fashion that doesn’t betray the audience or the actors. It’s not something you usually pay attention to, because when it’s done well, you don’t notice, but when it’s not done well, it’s sometimes the reason you’re looking for when a scene doesn’t work. Cameron and Lovejoy make this an example of how it’s done well.

Stan Winston is also on the commentary. He was a second unit director and, more notably, created the alien effects. His commentary gave me a new appreciation for the type of miniatures work that was done - this was before CGI was an affordable option. The use of models involves a “forced perspective” to make the models look their intended size. In addition, cameras were run at a high-rate of speed to give this illusion. As a result of the camera speed, the crew manipulating them had to make them move that much faster. It’s a great technique - it looks so good that I wonder if its ever used today - obviously I’m not much of a special effects geek or I’d know - it’s probably too expensive when digital effects are available. Oh - the first shot of the queen, and most of the queen shots, however, aren’t a miniature - it’s a 14 foot puppet. Impressive stuff, throughout. I want that puppet. With a SDM built-in (see previous post).

Some trivia:
- The shoot for this film was only 65 days.
- Sigourney Weaver got a million bucks for the film because the producers didn’t work out the deal before numerous other commitments had been made and, apparently, she had a great agent.

Nitpicks:

- The Marines’ behavior rings false to me in the beginning. The characters are too stereotyped and the lack of discipline shown seems out of place. This doesn't persist throughout (mainly because they die off - Hudson, Vasquez and Gorman start acting like soldiers eventually when the shit hits the fan). There are valid arguments to be made (they’re special forces, traumatized themselves, among others), but it’s my gut reaction.
- The long shots of the drop ship flying show the age of the movie even more than "Alien," I think - they’re pretty 2D - it looks like a model in front of a screen. Given the amazing illusions involved with the miniature work elsewhere, the long ship shots in space and flying back into the burning facility at the end stick out to me - a true nitpick.
- The only possible writing/direction misstep I see in this film occurs when Ripley rescues Newt and purges the egg room with fire. She launches grenade after grenade, round after round, and she NEVER targets the queen (except for her egg sack)? It could be argued she was distracted by the face huggers and the warriors, but she seems to have time to select her targets and given Ripley’s character, I think she really would have launched everything at the queen until it was dead. There is the neat dynamic where she looks at the queen, the queen recognizes her precarious position and the warriors back off - but then Ripley torches the place anyhow? This certainly isn’t a major misstep, but I think a shot of her targeting the queen and the queen getting cover or something would have sufficed to account for this. I’ve probably missed something here. If I did, then it’s a misstep on Cameron’s pacing (joke).

A great movie - I haven't mentioned Bill Paxton or Paul Reiser, either - Hudson's quotes live on in pop culture, and Reiser's performance is also very good. I'll have to let them get the short end of the stick for this post.

More info:

Wikipedia article on "Aliens"
IMDB "Aliens" entry

Snow Edict of Doom™ 2011 - ALIEN gush

"Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility." -Ash

I enjoyed my first night of 2011’s Snow Edict of Doom™ by viewing the blu-ray of “Alien.” This is very high on my all-time favorite movie list. There are many themes running throughout that are subtly interwoven into a sci-fi masterpiece: feminism, populism, classism, the intersection of technology with human psychology, and many more. There have been books written entirely on the character of Ripley. Hell, there’s even a Shelley/Ozymandias visual reference thrown in. In spite of all of these themes, none of them are too overbearing or exaggerated. In addition to its societal statements, it stands out on a variety of other levels.

It is both a science fiction and horror movie. Its pacing is nothing short of brilliant – when you think someone is going to catch it in the face they don’t. Eventually, they do, of course, but it does a great job of keeping you on your toes even after multiple viewings.

I’m not sure where to even begin with the parasitic face-huggers other than to say, well, gross! I’ve read some allusions to male rape and the androgynous images throughout but if you’re taking the time to read ol’ doug’s blurbs, I’m not going to elaborate, however I must further mention the art design and special effects. H.R. Giger’s design of the alien and sets is unmatched in its creepiness and melding of the organic and mechanical as well as the previously mentioned androgyny. This film was made in 1979! 1979! This was a mere two years after Star Wars and even though its only beginning to show its age in this regard, it was astounding for its time. The fight with Ash is not a special effects highlight certainly, but when they turn Ash back on, it makes up for it by being one of the tensest moments in the film - a fantastic performance by Ian Holm.

In addition to the problem with the special effects during the fight with Ash, it is not a perfect movie, although the flaws are minor in my opinion. There’s a scene of apparent rain in a cargo bay. Maybe it’s condensation, but you could argue that it didn’t make any sense. The self-destruct feature seems out of place on a commercial tow vehicle, but it could be argued that it was put in place for the very reason it was used for, except that the quarantine procedures, albeit their subversion, would seem an adequate measure. It’s a little overboard to design a self-destruct sequence in case the crew gets out of line. As we find out in “Aliens,” the company was most distressed by the destruction of the ship, so why have that “feature?” I’m grasping here to find negative points, so I’ll end on another positive one – the blu-ray makes me very happy. It includes the theatrical release and the director’s cut. I’ve read that Ridley Scott got the cut he wanted for the theatrical release and says the director’s cut is not necessarily preferred – it’s more of an alternate cut. I watched the theatrical release. The transfer is beautiful. I can’t wait to watch the others in the series.

More info:

"Alien" Wikipedia article
"Alien" IMDB entry

Even the trailer is great. Embedding is disabled for it, so hop on over to YouTube to check it out.

Raging Bull

I christened my Blu-Ray player with "Raging Bull" - a Scorsese flick I'm ashamed to admit I hadn't seen. This is an amazing film - I think I was struck most by the use of cameras, women and fighting (natch) during slow-motion sequences. All of them are loved and, at times, manipulated well by Lamotta, but ultimately destroy him. This was Pesci's first major film and he is spectacular. I need to see "Ordinary People" again, but I can't imagine how that beat this out for best picture in 1980.

I think I stayed away from this movie because of my general queasiness with blunt-force, pugilistic trauma. After seeing it, I will probably not watch it again because my fears were realized. However, the cinematography is breath-taking and was worth the pain.

To Have and Have Not

I watched Howard Hawks's "To Have and Have Not" film (loosely) based upon Ernest Hemingway's novel of the same name. This was Humphrey Bogart's (Harry "Steve" Morgan) and Lauren Bacall's (Marie "Slim" Browning) first movie together - they purportedly fell in love during the filming. Their chemistry is undeniable. Walter Brennan plays Eddie, Harry's alcoholic friend. Brennan's Eddie is a little over the top to our modern tastes, I think, but is lovable none the less. The Germans are a little curious as the head officer appears Samoan, but I'm sure the Germans enlisted creeps both far and wide.

The story isn't what you watch this movie for. You watch it for Bacall's and Bogart's performances, waiting for the classic lines such as "put your lips together and blow." As a bonus, Hoagy Carmichael plays Cricket, and provides a couple of velvet-voiced performances.

Music - The Decemberists, Charles Bradley, Wanda Jackson

I've recently listened to The Decemberists' "The King Is Dead." I enjoy everything about this album except for one thing: Colin Meloy's voice. I like everything else, the songs, arrangements, and I like Meloy's lyrics, even his $10 words, but the voice... maybe I should give it more time.



I purchased the debut album from Charles Bradley, "No Time For Dreaming." Daptone Records can do no wrong, it seems. It's great to see older artists making a name for themselves after toiling for years searching for a music career.



I'm really enjoying this - it doesn't have the immediate kick of, say, an Aloe Blacc, but it's solid songwriting that transmogrifies (speaking of $10 words) into a warm soul blanket after only a few listens.

I also listened to Wanda Jackson's new album, "The Party Ain't Over" that was produced by Jack White. Again, love the music, love, love, love White's guitar playing, but, again, this artist's voice is not one I can listen to repeatedly.

Here's a video of her in her heyday - what a firecracker:



Here's her and Mr White's recent appearance on Letterman:



Again, love the music and love the idea of older performers getting their ya-yas out, but the voice... God bless her and America, though.

Looking forward to the new North Mississippi Allstars album next week.

The History of Western Philosophy - Socrates

Socrates looms large in Philosophy's history, but, as Russell notes, "is a very difficult subject for the historian." Russell outlines some notes that are generally accepted as being true:

- "He was undoubtedly an Athenian citizen of moderate means" and well-known.
- He educated the young and, unlike the Sophists, did so for free
- He was tried, convicted and executed in a trial around 399 B.C. on the charge that "Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others."

Russell relates how most of our knowledge of Socrates comes from two men. One of these was Xenophon, a military man whose intelligence has been called into question by a variety of historians and seems biased towards Socrates as he never discusses what caused Socrates to be persecuted. Russell therefore states that any of Xenophon's discussions of Socrates's philosophy cannot be trusted, but Xenophon's historical accounts of Socrates seem to be reliable and corroborated. The second person is Plato - one of Socrates's students and a witness to his trial. Russell states that although Plato's intelligence is obvious, his writing can be called into question precisely because Plato is a gifted writer:

"Plato... is an imaginative writer of great genius and charm... His Socrates is a consistent and extraordinarily interesting character, far beyond the power of most men to invent; but I think Plato could have invented him. Whether he did so, of course, is another question."

The most famous account of Socrates is Plato's Apology - the speech that Socrates made in defense of himself at his trial. Plato himself admits that this is not a word-for-word retelling and that literary license was taken. However, Russell notes that Plato was present and that Plato's intention is "broadly speaking, historical."

Socrates was put on trial, Russell believes, mainly due to his antagonism towards the aristocracy, of which Socrates was a member. He was convicted of basically corrupting the young. The prosecutor called for death, and in Athenian law, the defense was allowed to propose a lesser punishment. Russell posits that if Socrates wished to avoid death, he could have easily done so by countering the death penalty with a large, substantial fine that would have been paid for by Socrates's benefactors, including Plato. Instead, Socrates countered with an insignificant fine and thus, the death penalty stood.

Socrates is well-known for using the dialectic method to great affect; that is, the method of question and answer to seek knowledge. Russell notes that although Socrates did not invent this method (Zeno, a student of Parmenides is credited with this and with using it on Socrates), he most certainly refined it. Russell also notes that if the way Socrates's use of the dialectic method in the Apology is in any way truthful, it is not difficult to see why "all the humbugs in Athens would combine against him."

Russell then explains that Socrates was most concerned with ethics as the dialectic method does not answer questions that have to deal with empirical science. When Socrates attempts to do so in regards to Geometry in some of Plato's later dialogues, Russell states that he asks leading questions that any judge would disallow. Russell says that although this slowed later philosophers' scientific progress, Socrates's use of the dialectic method was excellent at uncovering logical errors - a useful trait.

"Perhaps 'philosophy' might be defined as the sum-total of those inquires that can be pursued by Plato's methods. But if this definition is appropriate, that is because of Plato's influence upon subsequent philosophers."

Movie Report

I've recently seen the following: A Prophet, Black Swan, Exit Through the Gift Shop, and Restrepo.

A Prophet - A French film about an Arab man who goes to prison very green and not only adapts, but climbs his way up through a criminal underworld. This movie has been universally praised for its straight, non-manipulative portrayal of prison. Here's the trailer:



I'm not as gaga about it as most critics are, but it's very good. The pacing was good, it was watchable in spite of the subject matter, but I didn't find it to redefine the genre of prison films as some critics have said it does. I need to see it again.

Here is the link to Filmspotting's review of the film and an interview with the film's director and star, Jacques Audiard and Tahar Rahim.

Black Swan - The first dance/dream sequence is an amazing piece of film-making. My impression coming away from this film is that the dance sequences are exquisitely filmed and the acting and portrayal of obsession are also very good. I think it goes off the rails a little bit with the effects and horror movie aspects, but not too much. Go see it - the dancing scenes alone make this film viable.



I don't find myself enjoying A.O. Scott's reviews, mostly due to their length and pretense, but he is a masterful writer. Here's his Black Swan review.

Exit Through the Gift Shop - A documentary about a Los Angeles-based shopkeeper, Thierry Guetta's obsession with filming LA street artists leading up to hunting for the famous London street artist, Banksy. The film is directed by Banksy and has a nice twist at the end that questions the nature of art. It is funny and thought-provoking. I watched it via Netflix instant viewing.



Here is Melena Ryzik's review.

Restrepo - A documentary that chronicles the deployment of a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. I wanted to see a different movie. This is a very good portrayal of a platoon's tour of duty. Just because I wanted to see a movie that explores more of the macro notions and fallacies of "nation-building," I cannot discredit this documentary. The fact that it is made entirely from the soldiers' points of view is what makes this film special.



I'd link to Michael Phillip's review of it on the Chicago Tribune's website, but the site itself (not to mention the paper) is such a disaster, that I'll link to Filmspotting's Top 10 of 2010 episode where Restrepo is discussed and Phillips is a guest reviewer. Hopefully Phillips will find greener pastures sooner rather than later (sorry for the digression).

Movies I Hope to Get to See

Culling these from Paste Magazine's articles on upcoming films at Sundance and elsewhere, I'm wanting to document the ones that sound interesting to me. I usually dump this sort of thing in my Netflix queue, but I'm far enough ahead of the curve on these that they're not listed in Netflix.

Pete Smalls Is Dead:

At Slamdance - from Paste's article:

The Category: Slamdance, Narrative Feature
The Premise: KC (Peter Dinklage), a former screenwriter turned downtrodden East Coast Laundromat owner, finds himself back in Los Angeles when his dog Buddha is kidnapped by loan sharks. KC reaches out to his friend Jack (Mark Boone Junior), who promises to front the $10,000 “dog” ransom if KC comes to L.A. to attend the funeral of their late friend Pete Smalls (Tim Roth), a famous Hollywood director.



The Key Players: Director Alexandre Rockwell; Peter Dinklage, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Rosie Perez

The Draw: That amazing cast. Buscemi and Roth together for the first time since Reservoir Dogs. The ridiculous blonde wig Buscemi wears. And the ludicrous premise. Delightful.

Page One: A Year At the New York Times - from Paste's article:

The Category: Sundance, U.S. Documentary Competition
The Premise: With the Internet surpassing print as our main news source, newspapers going bankrupt and outlets focusing on content they claim audiences (or is it advertisers?) want, Page One chronicles the media industry’s transformation and assesses the high stakes for democracy if in-depth investigative reporting becomes extinct. At the media desk, a dialectical play-within-a-play transpires as writers like salty David Carr track print journalism’s metamorphosis even as their own paper struggles to stay vital and solvent. Meanwhile, rigorous journalism—including vibrant cross-cubicle debate and collaboration, tenacious jockeying for on-record quotes, and skillful page-one pitching—is alive and well.

The Key Players: Director Andrew Rossi

The Draw: Oh, how can we count the ways this movie could be entertaining? It might be a hard-hitting expose of the unsightly sausage-factory works that goes into producing the world’s most influential newspaper. Or it might be a fast-paced thrill ride through the thousand-and-one split-second decisions that must be made to put out a high-quality daily. Or it could be a hilariously un-self-aware paean to the diligent saints that so many journalists see themselves to be. Or… or… or…

The Green Wave

The Category: Sundance, World Cinema Documentary Competition
The Premise: In early 2009, a new generation of Iranians hoped for change through the upcoming presidential elections. Fueled by youthful exuberance and media technology, a groundswell—the so-called Green Wave—emerged to challenge the status quo, and caused a seismic shift in the political climate. A new brand of revolution seemed to be at hand. All polls predicted challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would be the country’s next president; however, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the victor, prompting a backlash of unparalleled violence and oppression and a massive surge of human-rights violations that continues today. In this powerful and urgent documentary, filmmaker Ali Samadi Ahadi integrates animation with live-action footage, testimonials, and posts from courageous Iranian bloggers, who dared to tell the world about the anatomy of the movement and its devastating consequences. The Green Wave is a remarkable portrait of modern political rebellion, an exposé of government-sanctioned violence, and a vision of peace and hope that continued resistance may galvanize a new Iran.
The Key Players: Director Ali Samadi Ahadi
The Draw: Reminiscent of the beautiful Waltz With Bashir, but with the added twist of integrating actual tweets and other social media into the narrative. It could be the rethinking of the current wave of the digital age that The Social Network promised to be. And it could have far more impact on the world.

THE GREEN WAVE teaser (ENGLISH) from Jan Krueger on Vimeo.

14 Favorite 2010 Albums

I'm finding that I'm enjoying R&B more as I grow older. I continue to enjoy alternative country, americana, folk, roots, or whatever you want to call it. There continues to be a wealth of world music out there that I need to take pains to explore - the same goes for jazz. Great music continues to be made, but the "noise" surrounding it has grown, too. It seems that the internet and other trends continue to bring us a world of options, but have also made it more work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Out of the numerous 2010 albums that I've listened to, here are my 14 favorites in alphabetical order with a sample song from each. I hope you dig it like chicks dig overalls.

Aloe Blacc - Good Things



Black Mountain - Wilderness Heart



Blitzen Trapper - Destroyer of the Void



Broken Bells - The High Road



The Budos Band - The Budos Band III



Carolina Chocolate Drops - Genuine Negro Jig



Cee-Lo Green - The Lady Killer



I have to include this, too:



I love that.

Dylan LeBlanc - Paupers Field



Janelle Monae - The ArchAndroid



JJ Grey and Mofro - Georgia Warhorse



Johnny Cash - American VI



Mary Gauthier - The Foundling



Midlake - The Courage of Others



and last, but certainly not least:

Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings - I Learned the Hard Way

The History of Western Philosophy - Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles

I don't have a whole lot to relate about the philosophers I've been reading about. I'm really making this post just to beat the number of posts I made in the entirety of 2010 (4). This is the FIFTH post I've made in 2011. Whew - glad I'm over that hurdle!

So, here's what I've got:

Heraclitus: everything changes
Parmenides: nothing changes
Empedocles: "Great Empedocles, the ardent soul, leapt into Etna, and was roasted whole." There's also the trifle that he discovered air as a separate substance. Oh yeah, he hated beans, too (see Pythagoras). Maybe his discovery of air and hatred of beans was a result of bath farts. There's a hypothesis!

The History of Western Philosophy - Pythagoras

(click for bigger picture)

Who thought reading a history of Philosophy would be funny? Regarding Pythagoras, credited with first developing deductive reasoning, Russell offers this:

Pythagoras is one of the most interesting and puzzling men in history. Not only are the traditions concerning him an almost inextricable mixture of truth and falsehood, but even in their barest and least disputable form they present us with a very curious psychology. He may be described, briefly, as a combination of Einstein and Mrs. Eddy. He founded a religion, of which the main tenets were the transmigration of souls and the sinfulness of eating beans. His religion was embodied in a religious order, which, here and there, acquired control of the State and established a rule of the saints. But the unregenerate hankered after beans, and sooner or later rebelled.

That's hilarious! "Hankered after beans!" Okay, maybe not Greg-Giraldo-hilarious, but pretty funny for a history of Philosophy. Right? Ahem.

The History of Western Philosophy

I started "The History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell today. He is a skilled, direct writer. I am encouraged by this as a broad and deep topic does not need to be hampered by imprecise and/or pretentious prose.

From the "introductory:"

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's land is Philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at once? Is there a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving towards death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly? To such questions, no answers can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy.

He goes on to explain why it's relevant to pursue this seemingly Sisyphean endeavor - "To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it."

It's been a long time since I've changed the oil in the brainpan - this feels daunting, but also very refreshing.

12 Books to Read During 2011

I'm going to participate in Roof Beam Reader's 2011 TBR Pile Challenge. Here are my 12 books from my tbr (to be read) pile:

The Darkness That Comes Before - R. Scott Bakker*
Let the Right One In - John Ajvide Lindqvist
Consent to Kill - Vince Flynn
The Boxer Rebellion - Diana Preston
A History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell
The Polish Officer - Alan Furst
Woken Furies - Richard K. Morgan
I Married a Communist - Philip Roth
American Gods - Neil Gaiman
Feast of the Goat - Mario Vargas Llosa
Occidental Mythology - Joseph Campbell*
Foucault's Pendulum - Umberto Eco
Chicago: City on the Make - Nelson Algren
The Havana Room - Colin Harrison

* - alternates

The most amibitious book, I think, is "History of Western Philosophy," by Bertrand Russell. In the event I find it too daunting, I have "Occidental Mythology" by Joseph Campbell as a worthy alternate.

It's somewhat disconcerting to lay out these books as my reading list for all of 2011. I tend to be spontaneous with my picks, but maybe there is value in having this structure.

"Consent to Kill" would probably not be on my list if an acquaintance of mine hadn't already lent it to me and implored me to read it.

Giddy up.